ie_comp_about

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of disclosure. It explicitly states the output includes version, data source, coverage, and tool list, making it clear this is a read-only metadata operation. No hidden side effects or destructive behavior are implied, and the description is honest about its scope.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource, and lists the four key metadata items. Every word earns its place; there is no redundancy or filler.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a simple about tool with no parameters, the description fully covers the purpose and return value. The lack of an output schema is mitigated by the explicit enumeration of returned fields. Complexity is low, and no additional context is needed for an agent to invoke this tool correctly.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The tool has zero parameters, and the baseline for 0 params is 4. The description adds value beyond the empty schema by specifying what the tool returns, which is the entire semantic content. No parameter details are needed, and the description fully compensates for the void in the schema.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description uses a specific verb ('Return') and identifies a clear resource ('metadata about this MCP server') with enumerated contents (version, data source, coverage, tool list). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like ie_comp_search_decisions and ie_comp_get_decision, which are domain-specific data access tools.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description clearly implies when to use this tool: when you need server-level metadata or a tool list. While it doesn't explicitly state exclusions or alternatives, the sibling tools are all about decisions/mergers/sectors, so the context is unambiguous. A dedicated 'about' tool is self-explanatory.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.